Western Sydney International & Bankstown

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Is Bankstown airport doomed ?

The recently released preliminary flightpaths for WSI seem to block any westward routes from YSBI.

The training-area D556B will vanish because WSI is in its' centre and D556A will probably lose its' top half.

[PiperCameron]

Is Bankstown airport doomed ?
No
The training-area D556B will vanish because WSI is in its' centre and D556A will probably lose its' top half.
Yes.

There's been a fair bit of discussion on this sad and sorry topic here: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/653106-qantas-jetstar-confirm-flights-western-sydney-airport-3.html but feel free to continue as you wish. :)

[tossbag]

What an absolute ******* embarrassment, there will be NOWHERE in Sydney to do flight training come Badgery's. Biggest city in Australia, if you want to learn how to fly you're gunna have to move regional or interstate.

[43Inches]

I'd be suprized if Bankstown does survive, everything it does can be consolidated to WSI, it's current location is squeezed in the middle of the two and with very little airspace. It would make more sense to add a short, second runway to WSI for GA types and send the private/freight/aeromeds there. Training is definitely doomed with a training area more than 30 minutes transit, I can't see YSBK surviving with that sort of cost impost on students and operators.

[PiperCameron]

I'd be suprized if Bankstown does survive, everything it does can be consolidated to WSI, it's current location is squeezed in the middle of the two and with very little airspace. It would make more sense to add a short, second runway to WSI for GA types and send the private/freight/aeromeds there. Training is definitely doomed with a training area more than 30 minutes transit, I can't see YSBK surviving with that sort of cost impost on students and operators.

It'll be an interesting one to watch.. but my take on the surroundings is that yes flight training at YSBK might be doomed and they'll probably lose a runway or two to industrial development, but YSBK and YSCN host enough specialised GA and Helo operators who prefer not to mix with wake turbulence from the big jets at WSI and SYD to keep these airports viable. At least I'm sure that's what SMA would be hoping.

As for flight training, hey if Camden is too far to drive, I'm sure you'd be welcome at Moorabbin (what's left of it..) :}

[43Inches]

The WSI master plan already has a second runway planed for future construction, if they had any sense they would make a small one suited for all SBK GA operators and build a GA precinct that can generate income until they need the 2nd runway expansion in 50 years or whatever. That would keep operators segregated both in the air and on the ground.

[PiperCameron]

The WSI master plan already has a second runway planed for future construction, if they had any sense they would make a small one suited for all SBK GA operators and build a GA precinct that can generate income until they need the 2nd runway expansion in 50 years or whatever. That would keep operators segregated both in the air and on the ground.

I believe they looked into that early on and then canned the idea for various reasons, mainly to do with excessive design, logistics and political costs.

[Dick Smith]

The authorities must have completed an airspace design proposal for the airport.

I wonder when it will be released?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Mornin' Dick et al,

I think you're confusing 'our authorities' with 'other authorities' who actually know what they are doing..........

Bye BK .
No cheers here........

[PiperCameron]

The authorities must have completed an airspace design proposal for the airport.

I wonder when it will be released?

Good question. The mix of government "requirements" and private enterprise makes WSI an interesting project. For the longest time it was a slowly-developing train wreck only maybe now just coming back on the rails - maybe.

Perhaps this is normal for government-funded projects (I wouldn't know) but in the private sector one usually has to provide all the paperwork up front to get a planning permit. For this one, it seems the Federal Government bought the land, WSI Corporation was given approval to start the design/build process and with the build half-complete they only now think about generating an EIS that includes noise impacts from flight path planning they haven't really thought much about?!?

It's all very confusing.. for sure there'll be a few dents here and there before it's finally open for business. :(

[ACMS]

I’m sure the needs of a new build major capital city airport bringing in billions of $$$$$$ of revenue over its life would trump the needs of little old Bankstown……..sad but necessary I’m afraid.

Bankstown will work it out.

[43Inches]

Good question. The mix of government "requirements" and private enterprise makes WSI an interesting project. For the longest time it was a slowly-developing train wreck only maybe now just coming back on the rails - maybe.

Perhaps this is normal for government-funded projects (I wouldn't know) but in the private sector one usually has to provide all the paperwork up front to get a planning permit. For this one, it seems the Federal Government bought the land, WSI Corporation was given approval to start the design/build process and with the build half-complete they only now think about generating an EIS that includes noise impacts from flight path planning they haven't really thought much about?!?

It's all very confusing.. for sure there'll be a few dents here and there before it's finally open for business. :(

It was probably smart to do it this way, slightly underhand, but the only way to push through what is sorely needed infrastructure. Pretty easy to see the reaction happening now as flight paths are released, if that happened prior to breaking ground the project would have stalled into a mire of NIMBY politics. Easier to say "the airports way out there", let people think it's only going to bother a few horse breeders and then stick them with reality that big jets need to fly over your house to position to land. Look at the issues Melbourne is facing vs locals that moved there well after the airport plan was developed in the 70s. If they just went ahead and built the runway there would be no leg for them to stand on, but because they made the flight paths and alignment public early on its getting bogged down in politics. YSBK has always been on a finite time frame, Sydney is enclosing it, at least its another airport that will kill it, rather than its training areas being filled with ever spreading housing.

[Cedrik]

Is Bankstown airport doomed ?

Bankstown has been doomed since it was privatised, the first week showed there wouldn't be a future for aviation there anymore.

[Ixixly]

I absolutely agree with ACMS. The new airport in Sydney needs to be built to continue to support the cities growth and the simple fact is that Bankstown is in the way of this and is of far lesser concern.

If we're going to direct any efforts surrounding this I'd recommend that telling them to consider Bankstown in their planning of the Airports design or operations is utter folly and will lead nowhere. Instead, we should be pressuring the Government to put together funding for the re-location of the various organisations that call Bankstown home. This only seems fair, they are removing their place of operations to support what is a financial asset being created. It's not too dissimilar to the Government deciding to build a highway through a person's home, they don't just turn up one day with bulldozers and tell them too bad, they buy it at a "Fair rate".

[43Inches]

Hence as said before they should really have added a GA runway where the second runway will be, just as an interim as the second runway is probably 50 years off anyway. Add the necessary infrastructure for the GA charter/aeromeds/freight even private parking to use that and segregate ops. Training is going to be uneconomical apart from maybe navigation PPL/CPL/IFR training. Once those operators are relocated YSBK has next to no purpose, as well as the operators now getting access to ILS and GBAS etc...

[PiperCameron]

And as said before, there's no political will nor capability to do it. The mob currently running the show are having a hard enough time building a passenger terminal and a serviceable runway as it is.. there's no way they could handle throwing GA into the mix - they'd go into meltdown!

Besides, even if they did, the landing fees and fuel surcharge would make this the most expensive GA airport in Australia.

If we're going to direct any efforts surrounding this I'd recommend that telling them to consider Bankstown in their planning of the Airports design or operations is utter folly and will lead nowhere. Instead, we should be pressuring the Government to put together funding for the re-location of the various organisations that call Bankstown home. This only seems fair, they are removing their place of operations to support what is a financial asset being created. It's not too dissimilar to the Government deciding to build a highway through a person's home, they don't just turn up one day with bulldozers and tell them too bad, they buy it at a "Fair rate".

There's no way the NSW Government is going to pay anything to relocate anyone away from Bankstown.. they'd rather it die naturally than do that.

But don't underestimate SMA - they've spent quite a few $$$ lately improving infrastructure around the place and have enough government support and enough established on-airport leaseholders wanting to stay that Bankstown, as an airport, isn't going away anytime soon. It may get smaller if they dig up a runway or two and sell the land to pay their bills and may eventually disappear if WSI proves as popular as some claim, but that's a really big maybe and isn't for decades yet anyway.

[43Inches]

There's no way the NSW Government is going to pay anything to relocate anyone away from Bankstown.. they'd rather it die naturally than do that.


One proposal for a relocation of Jandakot was exactly that, the sale of the original site covering the cost of the new airport and relocation. That was ended as the businesses did not want to be significantly further away from Perth, especially the aeromedical services, as well as the new site having significant opposition to a new/busy airport at that location.

[PiperCameron]

One proposal for a relocation of Jandakot was exactly that, the sale of the original site covering the cost of the new airport and relocation. That was ended as the businesses did not want to be significantly further away from Perth, especially the aeromedical services, as well as the new site having significant opposition to a new/busy airport at that location.

Exactly. As is common all over the world, ground transport is the biggest problem with airport location near our largest cities. The only solution is (like they with Tullamarine and Brisbane Airports) to plan and build the freeways direct to site first - but that simply isn't going to happen for any smaller regional airport these days because there isn't the pax/freight numbers to warrant it. NIMBY. So they might as well stay right where they are until commercial development entirely over-runs them.

The truth is, just as they do for most infrastructure projects, successive governments have let our major cities outgrow the need for their airports. For WSI to succeed, it really should have been built last century when there was nothing but cows and perhaps a few sheep around to wonder what the fuss was all about.

[aroa]

PC. WSI was thought about last Centuary. It’s just that with the wheels of bureaucracy and political rocks in the cogs
it takes decades to come to fruition. Albo was dead against it way back when.
since Oz has never had a national infrastructure plan for aviation and airports its just ad hoc, cobble up as we go.
She’ll be right..with muck ups and mega bucks.

[Gne]

If you want to explore the possibilities placed on the table earlier in the discussion, you would find the General Aviation Study Sydney Region (GASSR) 1986 (if I remember the title and date correctly) and, probably not as accessible, if at all, the Defence proposal concerning Richmond of the same year. The NSW RAPAC meetings that year were full of fun!

Gne.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I remember the photo on the front page of the local newspaper when PM Gough Whitlam visited the Baulkham Hills Shire Council chambers, at the time when those chambers were located in the main street through Castle Hill. He was met with a protest. The photo featured one of my little brothers waving a pamphlet in Gough’s face: No Airport For Galston. I assume my little brother had been pressed ganged into service by our parents.

Gough was PM 50 years ago.

The debate about the location of Sydney’s second international airport had raged for many years before that minor skirmish. The Badgerys Creek area had been set aside in the 60s, but lots of other locations - including Galston - were run up the flagpole.

As with aviation safety regulation, airport location is mostly about politics.

[Advance]

The authorities must have completed an airspace design proposal for the airport.

I wonder when it will be released?

Dick in the proper course of a complex aviation integration project (like fitting a major new airport into a coastal plain with other airports and a sprawling city) the right place to start is with a safey study - a consideration of all the options and how each would work, a risk register for each option and an analysis of those risks, an evaluation of those to see which could be eliminated or at least migitgated and the resultant, fully managed risk. And risk in this context can be expanded to include environmental and social (pollitical) risks as well as broken metal risk.

I do not know all the steps that went into WSI but it is clear that an EIS was carried out in 1996/1997 that recommended the WSI runway be more N/S alighned to enable a coherent mix of traffic with SYD and BK. Expert aviation opinion had been sought by the Department for that EIS. Sought, yes, but ignored.

Tony Abbott eventually ordered another EIS which by design or omission, I do not know, did not seek the kind of expert ATC advice that helped inform the first EIS. The outcome and the recently revealed flight paths shall we say, offer a more politically acceptable outcome but at a higher risk of poor aviation operational and safety outcomes.

So in this political planning methodology, the airport is almost physically complete. Now is the time to tell the populace what it means to them in terms of flight paths... now that it is too late to change the runways and thus the resulting flight paths.

Oh, yes Minister, we will indeed consult widely with the community, but with the physical infrastructure almost complete that is just for show, box ticking, expensive time wasting to say we did it.

Now that we have decided the flight paths, yes Dick, now we (who, tell me their name and expertise) can do an airspace study and invent some new, never before heard of (certainly not USA best practice) method of managing this mess of Departmental creation. Somebody has already remarked on the resultant camel of a horse designed by committee.

What an unholy mess. Why can people not learn? The USA tried to get Dulles to replace Washington National, the Canadians tried to get Miirabel to replace Dorval for Montreal. Neither worked as desired.

So as EX-FSO Griffo wisely put it: I think you're confusing 'our authorities' with 'other authorities' who actually know what they are doing..........
(And he learned to fly at YSBK about the same time you and I did!)

[PiperCameron]

So in this political planning methodology, the airport is almost physically complete. Now is the time to tell the populace what it means to them in terms of flight paths... now that it is too late to change the runways and thus the resulting flight paths.

Oh, yes Minister, we will indeed consult widely with the community, but with the physical infrastructure almost complete that is just for show, box ticking, expensive time wasting to say we did it.

Now that we have decided the flight paths, yes Dick, now we (who, tell me their name and expertise) can do an airspace study and invent some new, never before heard of (certainly not USA best practice) method of managing this mess of Departmental creation. Somebody has already remarked on the resultant camel of a horse designed by committee.

What an unholy mess. Why can people not learn? The USA tried to get Dulles to replace Washington National, the Canadians tried to get Miirabel to replace Dorval for Montreal. Neither worked as desired.

I really don't understand why folks are surprised by this, since exactly the same process (with some local variation) was followed with Brisbane's additional runway not all that long ago: Step 1: Build it. Step 2: Release the flight paths to the locals to complain about, Step 3: Pin the blame on one or more of the hundreds of government-selected 'consultants' on the buck-pass list and finally move on squeaky-clean.

It seems it works so well that it's SOP for governments all over.

[Advance]

I really don't understand why folks are surprised by this, since exactly the same process (with some local variation) was followed with Brisbane's additional runway not all that long ago: Step 1: Build it. Step 2: Release the flight paths to the locals to complain about, Step 3: Pin the blame on one or more of the hundreds of government-selected 'consultants' on the buck-pass list and finally move on squeaky-clean.

It seems it works so well that it's SOP for governments all over.

Sorry Piper Cameron but BNE was always intended to have a parallel runway.
GO back to the 1970's Parliamentrary Public Works Committee documents and you can follow the design through to the Airport Master Plan.
Roads were laid out, the tower sited, its pillars oriented, all to allow for that runway.
In those days the Department of Many Names (DCA then I think) included what is now CASA and AsA as well as the "Airports Branch" which then designed airports but later became simply a management function in the Department where it is today.
One thing that did change following community consultation is that the new parallel was "slid" north along its centerline to reduce noise in the suburbs to the south of the airport.
Thank BACL for that change; it had zip to do with the government.

The processes for BNE were vastly different (and much better informed) than those for WSI.

[43Inches]

Sorry Piper Cameron but BNE was always intended to have a parallel runway.
GO back to the 1970's Parliamentrary Public Works Committee documents and you can follow the design through to the Airport Master Plan.
Roads were laid out, the tower sited, its pillars oriented, all to allow for that runway.
In those days the Department of Many Names (DCA then I think) included what is now CASA and AsA as well as the "Airports Branch" which then designed airports but later became simply a management function in the Department where it is today.
One thing that did change following community consultation is that the new parallel was "slid" north along its centerline to reduce noise in the suburbs to the south of the airport.
Thank BACL for that change; it had zip to do with the government.

The processes for BNE were vastly different (and much better informed) than those for WSI.

Except Melbourne which has had a 4 runway master plan since the 70s is struggling with the politics of building the third because they released the flight paths before building it. Melbourne Airport should have just said, tough, you moved there, it's being built, and look at your section 32, it's probably got airport noise overlay as part of its caveats.

[AnotherFSO]

Western Sydney environmental impact statement released:
https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/media-release/western-sydney-airport-draft-environmental-impact-statement-released-feedback

"Today the Albanese Government is releasing the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport for public feedback.This feedback will help guide the final stages towards opening Australia’s new international gateway.

"The EIS includes assessments of the noise, social and environmental impacts of the WSI preliminary flight paths and the Australian Government’s proposed actions to address any areas of concern."

Sydney Morning Herald article:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-airport-s-flight-paths-shaken-up-to-clear-way-for-rival-in-west-20231023-p5eedz.html

[jonkster]

From the EIS

19.5.5 Economic impacts to Bankstown and Camden airports

Due to the introduction of flight paths for WSI, there will be a change in the
overall airspace configuration within the Sydney Basin available for Camden and
Bankstown Airports. According to Aeria Management Group (the airport operator),
both airports will contribute around $1.6 billion and around 10,000 jobs by
2024/2025. Transport for NSW (2022) and .id Consulting Pty Ltd (2022) indicate
there are around 3,500 jobs at Bankstown Airport, and around 350 people work in
retail and food services on the fringe sites.

Both airports provide essential flying training capacity in the context of the
global shortfall in pilots. Pilot shortages can constrain the economy with
wide ranging impacts. Flying training at Bankstown and Camden airports provides
capacity for more than 600 student pilots per annum. The trainee pilots use 3
flying training areas within the vicinity of WSI. With the introduction of the
proposed airspace design, these flying training areas are anticipated to be
restricted to the residual portions of the flying training areas as well as 2
possible areas to the north and south of the Sydney Basin. This means that the
pilots would need to be travel further to reach the new flying training areas
which would translate to increased “transit” flight durations, extended
training schedules and increased costs including increased flying training
times and increased fuel maintenance costs.

The majority of training flights for the CASA Recreational Pilot Licence (RPL)
are based on a one hour start-up to shutdown sortie length. According to
operators at Bankstown Airport this is likely to increase to 1.2 hours due to
longer transit times to and from what is anticipated to be the new training
area resulting in a marginal cost of $91.80 per lesson. Training flights for
the issue of a CASA Private Pilot Licence (PPL) would increase flight time by
around 10 per cent at a marginal cost of $50.60 per lesson. Joy flight sorties
would face an increase in flying time of approximately 20 per cent at a
marginal cost of $222.

This assessment has assumed that half of all aircraft movements (being around
150,000 per annum) are affected by extending flight times at an average cost of
$100, resulting in around $15 million in additional costs each year. This would
increase over time with rising demand at around one per cent per annum


To mitigate the impact the strategy will be

DITRDCA will continue to consult with aerodrome
operators and airspace users at Bankstown and
Camden Airports regarding airspace requirements in
order to minimise risks and associated economic costs.

1. Assuming their estimates are valid, my reading is they are saying the costs passed on to ab initio training will be of the order of $90 per flight hour (and increase hours to achieve qualifications by 20%.) Students will walk away - why pay more for slower and longer training? Why pay more to spend 20% more time in flight transit, not actually doing the lesson? Why pay more, to rack up 20% more hours to get a licence - needing more log book hours to get your basic qualifications is not a selling point.

2. I assume the mitigating strategy they propose to address these issues (continued consultation) will be the same as the consultation they say they have done with operators leading up to this... ie... nil (other than to inform them of the pre-decided outcome).

I am not commenting on the need for the new airport or the value it can bring to the overall economy - I can see why they want this to proceed but I believe it will not only bring benefits, but also nasty financial impacts to many existing operators, including the closure of businesses. I doubt YSBK can survive as a GA training aerodrome and YSCN is not in a position to take up any slack due to its inherent physical constraints. I cannot see how these impacts can be mitigated.

All my personal opinion.

[MagnumPI]

From the EIS



To mitigate the impact the strategy will be



1. Assuming their estimates are valid, my reading is they are saying the costs passed on to ab initio training will be of the order of $90 per flight hour (and increase hours to achieve qualifications by 20%.) Students will walk away - why pay more for slower and longer training? Why pay more to spend 20% more time in flight transit, not actually doing the lesson? Why pay more, to rack up 20% more hours to get a licence - needing more log book hours to get your basic qualifications is not a selling point.

2. I assume the mitigating strategy they propose to address these issues (continued consultation) will be the same as the consultation they say they have done with operators leading up to this... ie... nil (other than to inform them of the pre-decided outcome).

I am not commenting on the need for the new airport or the value it can bring to the overall economy - I can see why they want this to proceed but I believe it will not only bring benefits, but also nasty financial impacts to many existing operators, including the closure of businesses. I doubt YSBK can survive as a GA training aerodrome and YSCN is not in a position to take up any slack due to its inherent physical constraints. I cannot see how these impacts can be mitigated.

All my personal opinion.

If the strategy is going to be to leave the Sydney basin and train to the north, I presume this will be north of Brooklyn Bridge BBG. What's that - the better part of 30nm if going via Parramatta?

Given this, wouldn't it be more like 15min each way so actually another 0.5 per lesson? Sounds way more expensive to me.

I can't speak for the transit times to the S training areas as I'm not familiar with what they currently are or will become.

Also doesn't account for the time you spend waiting for takeoff clearance at BK!

[PiperCameron]

I am not commenting on the need for the new airport or the value it can bring to the overall economy - I can see why they want this to proceed but I believe it will not only bring benefits, but also nasty financial impacts to many existing operators, including the closure of businesses. I doubt YSBK can survive as a GA training aerodrome and YSCN is not in a position to take up any slack due to its inherent physical constraints. I cannot see how these impacts can be mitigated.

All my personal opinion.

This would not be the first time a GA airport in this country has had to give up flight training and the writing about this one has been on the wall for at least a decade. At least it's a slow death...

My personal opinion also.

[junior.VH-LFA]

I can't see any other outcome other than training moving to YSHL and YWVA. Surely driving to those airports is cheaper than the additional transit costs going to and from the training area.

I feel sorry for all the adventure flight/scenic operators at BK that will struggle to remain compeitive.

[PiperCameron]

I feel sorry for all the adventure flight/scenic operators at BK that will struggle to remain compeitive.

There's no need to feel sorry.. Because they don't need training areas, adventure flights/scenics of Sydney and the harbour will still be viable from YSBK (as will helos and commercial charter) for a long time to come, so the airport itself isn't likely to go anywhere anytime soon - it'll just shrink a bit (which will suit the new owners), and force students elsewhere as you point out.

[BronteExperimental]

There's no need to feel sorry.. Because they don't need training areas, adventure flights/scenics of Sydney and the harbour will still be viable from YSBK (as will helos and commercial charter) for a long time to come, so the airport itself isn't likely to go anywhere anytime soon - it'll just shrink a bit (which will suit the new owners), and force students elsewhere as you point out.

you clearly were not at the presentation….

[Checkboard]

You can still conduct some training during transit to a training area, so the extra 0.2 isn't a total loss.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The EIS looks at how the preliminary flight paths will affect First Nations and historic heritage
At least they've got their priorities right.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

towards opening Australia’s new international gateway.
Shouldn't that be newest International Gateway? I'd imagine that MEL and BNE would like a little less SYD-centric thinking in the Govt.

[PiperCameron]

Some interesting news in Aust Flying today, appearing to show YSBK isn't going anywhere anytime soon:Bankstown Airport Precinct Receives $130 Million Investment https://admin.australianflying.com.au/latest/bankstown-airport-precinct-receives-130-million-investment

Mayor El-Hayek said that as the third busiest airport in Australia, Bankstown Airport and the surrounding precinct supported more than 160 businesses and 6500 jobs and contributed over $1 billion to the NSW economy each year.“The potential to double the number of jobs and investment in our city is not a ‘pie in the sky’ vision – it’s a reality,” Mayor El-Hayek said. “It is no surprise that council’s commitment to providing opportunities to connect, share knowledge and ideas and form partnerships or collaborations, has led us to become one of the most innovative cities in Australia.”

AMG, which is owned by Aware Super, manages and operates Aeria precinct and Camden Airport, in South West Sydney.

Mr Jarosch said the company’s two new Major Development Plans, to be released in early 2024, would set the standard for 21st century airport precincts.

“Our planned $50 million central aviation precinct at Bankstown Airport will include up to nine new hangars with priority VIP aircraft access, to meet the needs of aviators today and beyond. This includes private charters, maintenance, flight training and advanced air mobility technologies, which will be powered by electric and hydrogen aircraft and next-generation drones,” he said.

[jonkster]

Mr Jarosch said the company’s two new Major Development Plans, to be released in early 2024, would set the standard for 21st century airport precincts.

“Our planned $50 million central aviation precinct at Bankstown Airport will include up to nine new hangars with priority VIP aircraft access, to meet the needs of aviators today and beyond. This includes private charters, maintenance, flight training and advanced air mobility technologies, which will be powered by electric and hydrogen aircraft and next-generation drones,” he said.


I wonder if the major development plans mentioned above are like the previously released Master Development Plans?

These appear every 5 years.

I understand (assuming the previous 2010, 2015 and 2020 plans have been successfully implemented) that Camden Aerodrome now has an Aviation Museum, an aviation business park, access arrangements for cyclists, more hangars, more aircraft parking and new taxiway signs.

I know for a fact they have added new taxiways signs. Not that the Echo sign is much use as it faces the wrong way and can't be seen taxiing out until you are past it.

Oh - and there is now a new tall perimeter security fence! Well.. not quite the whole perimeter, maybe about halfway around? you can still simply walk onto the airside by stepping over the donkey paddock fences that are around knee high and falling down and just walk on down. Although the tower does spot people doing this and sends the car to admonish the interlopers.

As for new hangars... well they have done some work on 3 of the 80 year old Bellman hangars to make them look newer. And knocked some other hangars down.

Can't say I have seen any actual new hangars. (Maybe some new glider hangars down near the river?) Currently hangar space at a premium. Most hangars packed like sardines.

Oh and not quite sure what facilities were needed to be added to make cyclists more welcome... you can still park your bicycle just about anywhere. You could probably even lift it over the donkey paddock fence if you wanted to and cycle along the runway.

The donkey, sadly, is getting pretty old but is still friendly. It wouldn't mind I don't think.

I recall Gerard O'Dea one of the old tower controllers used to ride his pushbike to work and leave it resting against the Tower. Perhaps if they open a push bike parking area it could be named the "O'Dea Bike Lot" in his honour? That's be a nice touch and recognising some of the history of the place.


Still looking for the museum and business park though...

Oh and a pair of plovers laid their egg next to the Alpha holding point well inside the flight strip a while back. I didn't hold much hope but happy to say the egg has hatched and now there are currently 2 plovers and a cute little chick wandering about the holding point! The groundsman regularly tries to shoo them away but they are always back soon after.

Personally,I think the Plovers raising a chick on the edge of an active runway is something to impressed by and a positive development.

They seem to be pretty sensible about the taxiing and landing aircraft, (unlike, unfortunately, the galahs, some of which clearly didn't look out on final approach and are now ex-galahs).

NOTAM INFORMATION
-----------------

CAMDEN (YSCN)
C61/23
INCREASED BIRD HAZARD (GALAH) IN VCY OF AD
FROM 10 232231 TO 11 230000

Can't wait to see what will be happening in the next 5 year plan! :)

[Clinton McKenzie]

Hopefully the new plan will include a VertiPort and - to stretch the memories of those committed to progress - a Multifunctionpolis. Those two - and diesel piston engines - will usher a new dawn for general aviation in Australia.

[PiperCameron]

Bankstown Airport Wins Australia's Metro Airport of the Year Award

https://admin.australianflying.com.au/latest/bankstown-airport-wins-australia-s-metro-airport-of-the-year-award

Bankstown Airport has been named Metro Airport of the Year at the 2023 National Airport Industry Awards.

The coveted title celebrates the excellence of Bankstown Airport – operated by Aeria Management Group (AMG) – in supporting the general aviation industry and sustainable growth, including essential emergency services and emerging net zero electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft.

I know I've said it before, but I really don't think YSBK is going away anytime soon.

[Clinton McKenzie]

No doubt YSBK will remain. For a while.

But if you think it’s anything other than a shadow of what it used to be for GA (including runways, hangarage and maintenance/parts support) at reasonable prices, I’ve shares in the Harbour Bridge to sell you. The ‘emergency services’ operators pay (NSW taxpayers’) money through the nose to Aeria to have any base at YSBK. Heritage hangars bulldozed. Runways bulldozed. You should know the MO, from your experience at YMMB.

And ‘net zero electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft’? Let’s hope the Multifunctionpolis is well-advanced in its research.

[Mr Mossberg]

I know I've said it before, but I really don't think YSBK is going away anytime soon.

Of course it's not going anywhere, but the point is, there will be nowhere in Sydney that a student pilot can learn how to fly. What an embarrassment. Have a look at the airports that ring Melbourne and Brisbane that conduct flight training.

[Mr Approach]

There is a lot of talk about "training areas" in this posting. Enlighten me about why they are so important in the civilian context.

Surely they are simply a piece of airspace that CASA OAR has put a red square around and called a Danger Area?

Does civil flying training have to take place in a Danger Area, does it have to be Class G, could it be Class E?

Most flying training, it seems to me, is carried out in the circuit area, these are not Danger Areas....

My point is that many correspondents have talked about transit times to "training areas". Surely any piece of airspace can be a training area.....

[Mr Mossberg]

Most flying training, it seems to me, is carried out in the circuit area, these are not Danger Areas....

A bit over half of an RPL is carried out in the circuit area. But over two thirds of the PPL that includes the RPL portion is not carried out in the circuit area. The training can be carried in any uncontrolled airspace which includes Class E, but most Class E base is way above what is required for this training. You don't need a designated danger area to train in. But you need a bit of room to move, especially if there are others out there. Flight training out of Bankstown is not going to work when Badgery's is active, not unless you have students where lesson price is not a factor.

If your lesson is $350 per hour then 6 minutes is $35. Doesn't sound like much right, but if .3 is used in unproductive transit, it adds up. You can't use all of the transit time in lesson objectives, doesn't work that way.

[jonkster]

There is a lot of talk about "training areas" in this posting. Enlighten me about why they are so important in the civilian context.

Surely they are simply a piece of airspace that CASA OAR has put a red square around and called a Danger Area?

Does civil flying training have to take place in a Danger Area, does it have to be Class G, could it be Class E?

Most flying training, it seems to me, is carried out in the circuit area, these are not Danger Areas....

My point is that many correspondents have talked about transit times to "training areas". Surely any piece of airspace can be a training area.....

All the early ab-initio lessons are all outside of the circuit area:

effects of controls,
straight and level,
climbing and descending,
turning
stalling.

Following that are circuits but once the student is solo they will again need to be able to leave the circuit area to do

forced landings,
advanced turning,
advanced stalling,
force landings,
precautionary search and landing
basic instrument flight

Also the student will need to practice a number of non-circuit lessons solo so need to know how to depart and arrive at the departure field but also very importantly be able to navigate the areas safely.

Having an area close to the departure field to do those lessons is important, the student pays by the hour. Spending a significant percentage of those lessons in transit (eg following a corridor to get to an area that is suitable - away from controlled airspace, with suitable altitude and space, away from built up areas and noise sensitive areas) means either the actual time on lesson must be reduced (and hence lessons must be carried across multiple flights) or each lesson will have to be longer. Both options mean higher costs for the student and slower progress.

The existing Bankstown/Camden training areas are heavily used with numerous aircraft doing such activities every day (listen to ATC giving traffic to IFR aircraft that transit those areas, it can be, at times, hectic). Where should the training aircraft go?

[PiperCameron]

The existing Bankstown/Camden training areas are heavily used with numerous aircraft doing such activities every day (listen to ATC giving traffic to IFR aircraft that transit those areas, it can be, at times, hectic). Where should the training aircraft go?

Canberra :E

[Mr Approach]

Mossberg.Jonkster - thanks for the replies, but my point was that training areas, as designated, are not a legislative requirement for training, especially as jonkster tells us that IFR aircraft transit through them! (If that is true, what is the point of the designation?)

Hence Bankstown people should be pushing for a minimisation of WSI airport airspace, so that schools can find a piece of Class G in which to train. The establishment of a "training area" is, from what you have told me, not necessary.

Given the proximity of airports to each other in Europe and the US, a quick trip overseas, with an unbrainwashed airspace specialist, might soon open your eyes.

[Mr Mossberg]

Agree with the points you are making Proach. What I'm saying in a roundabout way is the airspace in those parts will now mainly be controlled, leaving very little room for training sequences. Bankstown is virtually over as a GA training aerodrome once Badgery's is happening.

[Mr Approach]

Mr Mossberg - if you have the time take a look at the FAA charts for any major hub in the USA.

Utilising Class B, or C for less busy airports, surrounded by E, they keep the RPT traffic high and close to the airport, leaving plenty of low level Class E for VFR training.

The difference is that the FAA has the will to make things work, Airservices the opposite.

[Mr Mossberg]

Yeah mate, I've got an FAA licence :ok: have done quite a bit of private flying there, Chicago area.

Chalk and Cheese!

Nothing will change here, if anything it gets more complicated by the day.

[PiperCameron]

Consultation is now open for General Aviation operations in the Sydney basin. Speak up now or forever hold your peace:

https://www.avsef.gov.au/consultations/proposed-changes-general-aviation-operations-sydney-basin

[Mr Mossberg]

Speak up now or forever hold your peace:

Speak up about what exactly? Move both the southern and northern T/A's closer to Bankstown?

[PiperCameron]

Speak up about what exactly? Move both the southern and northern T/A's closer to Bankstown?

Now there's a good idea!... but if you think of anything else, it seems you have to the end of January to put it to CASA in writing. :}

[Biggles_in_Oz]

"Nepean One" in that https://www.avsef.gov.au/consultations/proposed-changes-general-aviation-operations-sydney-basin is 'interesting'.
I predict much more attention being given to carby-icing when arriving and to engine-temps when departing.

(I'm sure that the people near Katoomba will appreciate seeing aircraft 2000' closer to the ground)

[JustJoinedToSearch]

Class D+ must be the most Australian thing I've ever heard. Classic. :D

[PiperCameron]

Class D+ must be the most Australian thing I've ever heard. Classic. :D

It's better than getting D-minus :cool:

[jonkster]

maybe it could be called E flat. Or D sharp?

[Lead Balloon]

Class D+ must be the most Australian thing I've ever heard. Classic. :DDon’t forget that one of many existing humps on the Australian airspace camel is ‘Metro D’.

So technically the new proposal for YSBK should be called Metro D+. (Or Metro D sharp or Metro E flat, in jonkster’s nomenclature.)

[10JQKA]

Goes well with our G I suppose, which is really a G+ or F- type thing.

[Lead Balloon]

Indeed. So it goes D, Metro D+, Metro D then ForG.

[PiperCameron]

Pressure is slowly building for something to be done: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/flight-path-changes-from-new-sydney-airport-threaten-pilot-schools-20240205-p5f2f0.htmlTraining schools for pilots have warned they cannot afford the cost of shifting their operations to make way for Western Sydney International Airport in 2026, which could put further strain on the already depleted supply of pilots.

Aeria Management Group – which operates Camden and Bankstown airports and provides the bulk of pilot training in NSW – has warned the federal Department of Transport that its draft environmental impact statement for the new airport “substantially underestimates” the costs for the existing airports in the congested Sydney Basin.

.............

Aeria has asked the government for compensation, investment incentives and bolstered air traffic control resourcing to support the existing airports ahead of Western Sydney International Airport’s opening. It’s also called for a whole-of-airspace review of the broader Sydney Basin.

A spokesperson for Transport Minister Catherine King declined to respond to questions about the implications for the state’s flight training schools, but said the government was “considering feedback” received in the 8000 submissions to Western Sydney International Airport’s environmental impact statement.